Imran v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M-59183-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07.11.2025 Imran ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

By way of the present 2nd petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.63 dated 23.03.2019 registered under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act wherein offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 were added later on, at Police Station City Sardulgarh, District Mansa.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 years and 6 months and co-accused, namely, Ved Parkash, Pawan Kumar, Amit Chawla, Jaskaran Singh, Nirbhay Singh have already been granted regular bail vide common order dated 27.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-30945-2019 and other connected cases, thus, prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that a huge quantity of GEETA RANI 2025.11.21 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

CRM-M-59183-2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) contraband has been recovered in this case and forged and fabricated licence is also there. It is further submitted that the trial is at fag end as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the next date is fixed for recording of defence evidence and for arguments. It is further submitted that the earlier petition for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner i.e. CRM-M-2278-2022 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.05.2025.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, as the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 yeas and 6 months, the instant petition stands disposed off with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the conclusion of trial preferably within a period of 3 months from the next date of hearing fixed before it. If the trial Court fails to conclude the trial within the stipulated period, then the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking grant of bail before the Trial Court.

Upon such application being filed, the Trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing requisite bonds to its satisfaction by imposing such condition that his presence can be secured during the trial as the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 years and 6 months. It is made clear that if the delay in the trial is caused on the part of the petitioner/accused or other co-accused to help him to get bail, then he shall not be entitled for the aforesaid relief. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 07.11.2025 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2025.11.